Hamas, Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

sayed_samed

Same could be said of yourself because of your religous loyalties. I assume you were born in the USA from the orginal flag before it was changed to the shetland islands? Why are you loyal to cause that doesnt affect you? No i mean foreign fighters as those smuggled in via egypt and jordon. I dont mean a 9/11 style attack on israel i mean else were in the west, either the usa again or another of its allies.

Except my argument is well thought-out and logically consistent, while yours is full of holes and self-contradictory. I wasn't born in the US and I fail to see how demonstrating your hypocrisy and factual inaccuracies makes me loyal to any cause.

And Israel hardly cares if some of the terrorists who attempt to murder Israeli civilians are Palestinians or foreigners.

Reply 42

MRNO

OP

Hamas denies the right of Israel to exist. Hamas is an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the western values, and to the annihilation of Jews. It is clearly a Jewish-hating organization, depicting Jews as the source of all evil in the world. Terrorists are not legitimate govenments no matter how they are elected. Islamic fanatic cause a lot of the problems.

Reply 43

Ethereal

How precisely do you excuse the myriad women and children displaced or killed during the occupations. I have repeatedly said I do not condone Hamas/Other armed palestinian groups, however you fail to realise Isreal is no better.

Does Israel target Palestinians civilians? Do Palestinians target Israeli civilians? A yes or no on both questions will be sufficient.

Reply 44

gideon2000uk

9

Ethereal

A hotel is not a legitimate miitary target. Furthermore, the "jewish terrorist" groups were demanding a Jewish state of Isreal ergo it is relevent. Also pertinent to note under International law, the "jewish terrorists" were not actually awful combatants so technically any target was illegitimate.

What is wrong with wanting a homeland? The league af nations and the UN both backed them!

"The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel...

Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties. In fact, the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.

On July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews." As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.

In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which were widely hailed by Arab leaders as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.

For decades the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued the warning. He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#h

Reply 45

Ethereal

Isreal has not punished him for his actions as a deliberate action to kill is murder not manslaughter.

You're wrong. Deliberate killing can legally be either murder or manslaughter. Murder requires premeditation, there was no evidence of that in this case, it is highly unlikely that the spur-of-the-moment unplanned shooting could legally be classed as 'murder'. You need some legal education.

Ethereal

He was an unarmed civilian, and eye witness accounts clearly state he was marked as such.

The eyewitnesses being other ISM members and the ever-reliant palestinians. Brilliant.

Ethereal

Furthermore, Isreal was founded as the result of terrorist actions by an Isreali terrorist organization

Actually, the terrorist actions did not found Israel. They were denounced by the mainstream Zionist leadership which eventually declared Israel independent on land given to them by the UN.

Ethereal

in particular the bombing of the King David hotel. I find it somewhat hypocritical, verging on abhorrent therefore they claim to take the moral high ground.

The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Forces in the Mandate, it was hardly a soft civilian target, it was a Military HQ. Plus there is plenty of evidence that warnings were given and adequate time given for evacuation, but these were ignored. Plenty of Jews were killed in the bombings as well, you know.

Ethereal

Myriad countries have been attacked for engaging in ethnic cleansing, which is effectively what Isreal is involved in when they force large groups of refuges to flee parts of the occupied lands, and yet Isreal remains free from censure.

Israel invited all Arabs to stay upon its creation. It's population is now 20% Arab and growing, with full rights for Arabs. How is that ethnic cleansing?
And are you kidding about lack of censure?! 19 of the 57 resolutions passed by the UNGA last year were solely on Israel and all critical.

Ethereal

I would put it to you the only distinction between Isreali action and Palestinian action is that Isreal can shelter behind the United States.

That's blatantly false and ridiculous to anyone with any serious interest in and knowledge of the topic.

Ethereal

Returning, therefore, to the original point; Both Hamas andthe Isreali soldiers are terrorists and defenders of their people at the same time.

Wrong. Look up the definition of terrorism. It's the deliberate targeting of innocents for political or social gain. Israeli soldiers are all under orders to avoid harming civilians as much as is possible and the IDF carries out actions only for the self-defence of Israel - if there was no threat, it would not be required. On the other hand, palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians for political ends, the dictionary definition of terrorism. If you want to explain how bombing a restaurant full of civilians is an act of "defending the palestinian people" (despite such acts inevitably leading to more Israeli military responses), be my guest.

Reply 46

There have been reports of Palestinian children shot dead in the street by Isreali army. Also, children killed during the assasination attempts. Likewise, the Palestinians have also killed children.

So yes, and yes.

Neither side is better than the other, and both have killed innocents. To claim otherwise wouldbe falsity based on little more than bias.

Reply 47

To JohnathonH -

Murder is the causing of another persons death with intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm. To shoot someone in the head CLEARLY shows such intention. I do not need a legal education thank you very much, I am in the final year of an LL.B

Furthermore, the definition of "terrorism" is not the wounding or killing of civilians - it is merely the use of terror to achieve a political ideology. For example, a hoax bomb threat is still an act of terrorism.

Reply 48

Ethereal

There have been reports of Palestinian children shot dead in the street by Isreali army. Also, children killed during the assasination attempts. Likewise, the Palestinians have also killed children.

So yes, and yes.

Neither side is better than the other, and both have killed innocents. To claim otherwise wouldbe falsity based on little more than bias.

And there have been reports of flying saucers. You're actually claiming that Israel deliberately targets civilians? Does your knowledge of this issue come from anywhere other than www.binladenismyhero.com?

Reply 49

Ethereal

Murder is the causing of another persons death with intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm.

And that is different from manslaughter, how? Go on...

Ethereal

To shoot someone in the head CLEARLY shows such intention.

Why? You can shoot someone in the head in self-defence, by accident or in a heated crime of passion (which would usually be manslaughter). How can you claim that simply the act of shooting someone in the head is "clearly" murder without considering the circumstances of the event?

Ethereal

Furthermore, the definition of "terrorism" is not the wounding or killing of civilians - it is merely the use of terror to achieve a political ideology.

You'll find that most definitions contain specific references to the targetting of civilians, although there is no universally agreed upon definition.

Reply 50

Ethereal

There have been reports of Palestinian children shot dead in the street by Isreali army. Also, children killed during the assasination attempts. Likewise, the Palestinians have also killed children.
So yes, and yes.
Sorry, that's ridiculous. That logic is simply "my dog has 4 legs, cats have 4 legs therefore my dog is a cat", are you really a law student?

Reply 51

Actually no. I am unbiased in this discussion.

For example, please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3693860.stm

If you read it you will clearly see the following passage

"The UN says that the soldiers shot indiscriminately into the crowded refugee camp for more than half an hour. "

Reply 52

A trained marksman shooting someone in the head is clearly an intention to kill. The man was unarmed, and therefore self defence is not available. If you are going to attempt to argue points of law, at least learn them.

Your final quote, if you read the post I had answered is irrelevent. I was asked if isrealis had targeted civilians and if palestinians had targeted civillians. I answered yes and yes and provided reasons why.

I am tending towards the conclusion you are so biased in Isreals favour as to not accept they are capable of wrong doing, ang thus this is becoming somewhat protracted.

Reply 53

gideon2000uk

9

Ethereal

A trained marksman shooting someone in the head is clearly an intention to kill. The man was unarmed, and therefore self defence is not available. If you are going to attempt to argue points of law, at least learn them.

Your final quote, if you read the post I had answered is irrelevent. I was asked if isrealis had targeted civilians and if palestinians had targeted civillians. I answered yes and yes and provided reasons why.

I am tending towards the conclusion you are so biased in Isreals favour as to not accept they are capable of wrong doing, ang thus this is becoming somewhat protracted.

Irsael is notorioulsy difficult to spell. But it is usually a good indication of those who have read a lot about the country.

edit: (I feel bad for pointing this out already)

Reply 54

Ethereal

Actually no. I am unbiased in this discussion.

... Back to that crap again. I'm sure we've covered this before.

Ethereal

For example, please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3693860.stm

Ah the BBC. Cause they're impartial on Israel. :rolleyes:

You know, there was a very similar story to that one on the BBC a couple of years back. Then it was revealed that the PA ahd arrested a palestinian man who was firing nearby. The article disappeared off the BBC website, it was not corrected nor was the BBC's original statement of fact that Israel was responsible publically taken-back.

Ethereal

If you read it you will clearly see the following passage

"The UN says that the soldiers shot indiscriminately into the crowded refugee camp for more than half an hour. "

If you read it you will clearly see the following passage:

"The Israeli army says that it never directed fire at the school.

A spokesman said that it was impossible to say whether the stray bullet came from the army or from fire by the militants."

Reply 55

MRNO

OP

Islam and muslims in general should make a stand against terrorism, What kind of people would conceive and perpetrate a scheme that would lead to the burning, mutilation and death of 350 young children as was done in the school in Russia? What dogma was responsible for motivating Islamic women to strap bombs to their bodies and board two Israeli aircraft filled with passengers for the purpose of blowing them up and killing everyone? There is an Islamic terrorism based on socio-religious perceptions. It may not include the whole Arab and Muslim world but they are way to slow in condemning it.

Reply 56

So you believe an Israeli army spokesman over an independent UN observer? Are you really THAT biased that everyone but Israel is wrong?

I fail to see how you can claim I am biased when I have repeatedly stated I hold both sides to be equally guilty of killing innocents.

Reply 57

Ethereal

A trained marksman shooting someone in the head is clearly an intention to kill.

That doesn't make it murder though, does it? What if a police marksman shoots a terrorist with a hostage in the head. There's intention to kill, but it's not murder. My point here is the same as I was making before - you CANNOT point to an event such as "x shot x in the head" and say it was "murder" without having a full set of facts and context. As said before, murder requires PREMEDITATION. You have yet to demonstrate where that came in. If you were really a law student you'd know that "intention to kill or cause gbh" does not equal "premeditation", they're not the same thing.

Ethereal

The man was unarmed, and therefore self defence is not available. If you are going to attempt to argue points of law, at least learn them.

... I was throwing examples at you of the many things a shot to the head COULD BE. I also mentioned an accident and a crime of passion in the same sentence as 'self defence', did I not? So why would you now be claiming that I in any way claimed that self-defence was available in this case? I clearly did not. I was clearly just showing how shooting someone is not necessarily murder and can be a whole variety of things, ranging from accident through self-defence and manslaughter to murder. I know and understand the points of law, what I don't understand is why you fell the need to LIE and completely misrepresent what I said and the point I made...
Are you just pissed because you clearly can't demonstrate why it should be murder?

Ethereal

I was asked if isrealis had targeted civilians and if palestinians had targeted civillians. I answered yes and yes and provided reasons why.

The IDF does not target civilians. Yes, individual Israelis have, sometimes in and sometimes not in the IDF, but neither represent Israeli or IDF policy.

Ethereal

I am tending towards the conclusion you are so biased in Isreals favour as to not accept they are capable of wrong doing

And I am tending towards the conclusion that you're playing the pathetic "I'm less biased than you are, so I win" card and are getting increasingly pissy because you haven't been able to bluff your way through on the "it was clearly murder" line.

Reply 58

For the mouthfoaming anti-Israel people, what portion of Palestinian casualties are civilians and what portion of Israeli casualties are civilians? What do you think is the reason behind the enormous disparity in these two figures?

Reply 59